I understand the use case, but it just seems like a hassle and makes potential contributions like Robert was suggesting harder than they need to be.
I want people to be able to checkout the Sling source code and make changes to it and contribute those changes back. I don't want them wasting time worry about (a) how to write Java 5-compatible code or (b) whether or not to update the particular module they are interested in to Java 6. In other words, in the balance between "something that makes it easier to provide bug fixes for Java 5 users" and "something that makes it easier for people to contribute patch", I am thoroughly on the side of the latter. Justin On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org>wrote: > Yeah, but if I want to fix something let's say in commons scheduler > and this is targetted for existing installations using Java 5 and I > don't need any Java 5 stuff, why should I have to go through the hasle > and create my own release just to have a bundle working with Java 5? > > Having launchpad using Java 6 and only start with Java 6 is pretty > fine, using just Java 6 (and higher) for CI builds is fine as well. > I'm just talking about individual modules. > > Carsten > > 2013/1/31 Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com>: > > Hi > > > > In reality, the Sling Launchpad will not support Java 5 at all. > > > > We could just as well have the parent POM setup API checks for Java 6 > and configure the Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment appropriately. > > > > Regards > > Felix > > > > Am 31.01.2013 um 12:58 schrieb Justin Edelson: > > > >> -0 > >> > >> Why even try to support Java 5? Let's just say Java 6 as a minimum > across > >> the board and be done with it. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Carsten Ziegeler < > cziege...@apache.org>wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> we see more and more problems with supporting Java 5 and we discussed > >>> this several times in the past year(s?). So let's finally call a vote > >>> and see where we all are. > >>> > >>> I propose to drop Java 5 support in general - we should try to stick > >>> to it where possible for supporting existing installations, but each > >>> module should be free to set the base to Java 6 if it makes sense. > >>> > >>> We should also mark the bundles which require Java 6 (I think Felix > >>> proposed a way for this some time ago). > >>> > >>> Please cast your votes :) > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Carsten > >>> -- > >>> Carsten Ziegeler > >>> cziege...@apache.org > >>> > > > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > cziege...@apache.org >
